Allowed

Dilip Kumar Rawat @ Arun @ Chhotu v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 May 2022BAIL/721/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant, who was implicated in offences under IPC and POCSO, holding that a prima facie case for bail existed. The decision considered the alleged consensual relationship with the victim, her failure to raise an alarm during a 40-day stay, the period of detention, and judicial observation that the victim was major.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties, subject to conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

Dilip Kumar Rawat @ Arun @ Chhotu Vs State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 721 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Rawat @ Arun @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Tripathi,Sadaqat Ullah Khan

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

This matter was called in revised list. None appears on behalf of the first informant in spite of service of notice.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 175 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 (1) IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Barsathi, District - Jaunpur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

The report of this incident was lodged against Sunita, Jitendra Gaud @ Vidhayak and one unknown person. The name of the present applicant has surfaced during investigation of this matter.

¶9

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that the alleged victim was in consensual relationship with the present accused and she has lived together with the present accused for about 40 days at various places, but she did not raise any alarm anywhere about her captivity. Further argument is that she was taken for her medical examination but she did not get ready for it and refused her medical examination to be conducted. Further argument is that she was major and according to her school living certificate she was found to be 17 years 4 months and 7 days old. The learned counsel further submits that she was major and her date of birth has wrongly been recorded in the school leaving certificate on the statement of her parents as generally it is seen often the date of birth of children is not correctly filled up by the parents in admission forms. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is in jail since 18.09.2021 and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering that the alleged victim has lived together with the present accused for about 40 days and she did not choose to raise any alarm anywhere during her stay with the present accused, further considering the period of detention of the applicant and considering all other attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.

¶12

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶13

Let applicant Dilip Kumar Rawat @ Arun @ Chhotu involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

(1). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

¶15

(2). The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court may initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(4). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.5.2022 LBY

¶19

Digitally signed by LAL BAHADUR YADAV Date: 2022.05.27 16:11:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dilip Kumar Rawat @ Arun @ Chhotu v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Rawat @ Arun @ Chhotu v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samad Vs State of U.P.

Hari Kumar Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohasim @ Chanda Qureshi Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Usha Devi Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.